same time, it must be admitted, Mahomet might have found something too nearly resembling a precedent, in the unpruned and fanciful phraseology of some of the early Fathers. Saint Irenæus, for example, in a well-known passage quoted by Sale, introduces a tradition of Saint John, purporting to preserve the following, as a saying of our Lord: "The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which shall have each ten thousand branches, and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs, and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in every one of these clusters there shall be ten thousand grapes, and every one of these grapes, being pressed, shall yield two hundred and seventy-five gallons of wine; and, when a man shall take hold of one of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out, I am a better bunch; take me, and bless the Lord by me."* It is true, that, before the Scriptural figures of expression could be wrested to purposes like those of Mahomet, in his sensual paradise, the whole tenor of Scripture must have been wilfully misunderstood; but lan guage like that here employed by Irenæus, might too easily mislead inquirers of a very different spirit from that of the Arabian impostor.

*Irenæus, l. 5. c. 33. ap. Sale, Prelim, Disc. pp. 134, 135. note.

On the whole, whether, in his delineations of hell and paradise, Mahomet be traced, to the the writings of the Rabbins, to the Scriptures of the New Testament, or to the language of the early Fathers of the church, the coincidences here observable with Judaism and Christianity, compose precisely the kind of parallel demanded, on the basis of the present argument; and exhibit the very agreement to be anticipated, between the legitimate and the spurious revelation. Had the Koran, for example, presented a more spiritual paradise, the resemblance must have been nearer, than that authorized by the original natural relation.

But, in bare justice, it should be added, that, however cherished by the popular and orthodox belief, the more eminent Mahometan doctors regarded sensual delights neither as the sole, nor as the higher felicity, of their paradise. By its philosophical disciples, on the contrary, the gross representations of the Koran are, contrary to its too palpable tenor and design, refined wholly into a mystical and spiritual meaning. * Nor is

* « Sensuales istæ Paradisi voluptates, a sapientioribus Mohammedanis, censentur allegoricæ, ut melius ab intellectu humano concipiantur; eodem modo, quo, in Bibliis Sacris, multa dicuntur av pwπоπalws. Nam cum, ad Legatum Marrocanum scribens, commemorarem hortum ad instar Paradisi amœnum, ille me quasi reprehendens rescripsit, Paradisum esse talem locum, cui in hoc mundo nihil assimiletur, talem, quem nec oculus

it to be lost sight of, that even the vulgar belief, itself, reckons the vision of God as the supreme delight of heaven, and as the portion of those who shall obtain a superior degree of honour and felicity. "To these," they say, borrowing the very language of Scripture, "there are prepared, such things as eye hath not seen, nor hath ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive." Again, “Mohammed is reported to have said, that he will be in the highest honour with God, who shall behold his face, morning and evening; and this favour Al Ghazâli supposes to be, that additional and superabundant blessing promised in the Koran, which will give such exquisite delight, that, in respect thereof, all the other pleasures of paradise will be forgotten and lightly esteemed." * As an apology for the sensual paradise of Mahomet, or as a set off against the spirituality of a purer system, this commentary from the Saracenic phi

vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in animum hominis intravit." - Hyde, in Notis ad Bobovii Turcarum liturgiam, p. 21.; ap. Reland, p. 203. "Addamus et hoc testimonium Herbeloti, in Bibliotheca Orientali ita scribentis, postquam docuisset Mohammedanos summum bonum in communione Dei, et gaudium cœleste in fruitione luminis faciei Divinæ, quæ, ubicunque est, Paradisum faciat, collocare: Non igitur verum est, quod multi auctores qui oppugnarunt Mohammedanismum scripserunt, Muslimannos non aliam beatitudinem in cœlo agnoscere, nisi usum voluptatum quæ sensus afficiunt.'"- Reland, p. 204.

* Sale, Prelim. Discourse, p. 132, 133.

losophy is plainly without value: its importance, at the same time, is considerable in another aspect; namely, as it marks the tendency of Mahometanism to improve; and to improve, by approximation to the lights of Christianity.

Before we pass to another head of the doctrinal parallel, it may be well to submit a specimen or two of the literal agreement of the Mahometan, with the Scriptural representations, of the splendours of paradise.

SCRIPTURAL.

PARADISE.

And the building of the wall of it was of jasper, and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones.

In the midst of the street of it, was there the tree of life; which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month.

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. Rev. xxi. 18, 19. xxii. 1, 2.

MAHOMETAN.

Its stones were pearls and jacinths, the wall of its buildings enriched with gold and silver, and the trunks of its trees are of gold:

Among which, the most remarkable is the tree called Tuba, or the tree of happiness. Concerning this they fable, that it will be loaded with pomegranates, grapes, dates, and other fruits, &c.

The Koran often speaks of the rivers of paradise as a principal ornament thereof: but of two especially, Al Cawthar (or the river of happiness), and the river of life.

It is observable of Judaism and Christianity, that the principal doctrines contained in the Old Testament and in the New, came only gradually, and after long time and discussion, to be developed into the doctrinal systems maintained respectively within the two churches. The observation holds true of Mahometanism also: on comparison with Christianity, especially, the doctrinal parallel stands very strikingly illustrated, by the similarity, or rather sameness, of the great doctrinal questions successively agitated by the opposed religions.

The Jewish church, in our Lord's day, was divided into conflicting parties on the important question, whether the law of Moses was to be received as the sole authority and standard of

* See "Sacred Literature," p.250.